Skip to comments.Obama: It's illegal for states to refuse Syrian refugees
Posted on 11/25/2015 9:47:11 PM PST by Eleutheria5
The Obama administration on Wednesday reminded state officials across the country that states do not have legal authority to refuse to accept Syrian refugees, reports The Associated Press (AP).
The reminder from the White House came amid a growing controversy over the plan to accept Syrian refugees, in the wake of the discovery of a Syrian passport near the body of one assailant in the Paris attacks.
No less than 24 states announced earlier this week they would block the program to resettle Syrian migrants within their borders, though White House officials defended the current refugee program.
Later, the House of Representatives approved a resolution which aims to block administration plans to resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees in the coming year. President Barack Obama has threatened to veto the legislation.
On Wednesday, the Office of Refugee Resettlement said in a letter to state resettlement officials that states may not deny benefits and services to refugees based on a refugee's country of origin or religious affiliation.
States that do not comply with the requirement would be breaking the law and could be subject to enforcement action, including suspension or termination of the federally funded program, according to the letter, signed by the director of the federal resettlement office, Robert Carey, and quoted by AP.
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
Those “charities” that serve as fedgov’s immigrant pipeline have to register with the states as corporations, even non-profits. Investigate them and suspend their charters *now*, followed by cease & desist notifications served on their agents of process. Should’ve been done long ago, the feds have been using this network for years. A coordinated strike is warranted - all states that oppose this crap need to act at the same time.
[[big deal pull funding for a program that the states donât want to do. wow wish i could do that kind of threat at work.]]
The problem is though that the threat ‘works’ because states don’t want to relinquish the moneys and always seem to cave I nthe end
Doesn’t the Federal government have laws requiring Obama’s so called “refugees” and “aslyees” to prove that they are actually what they are claiming to be? I don’t think the Nightly News is proof enough to meet these requirements. These jokers can’t even prove they came from Syria. In God We Trust. Everyone else must prove what they are claiming.
would it be rude to refer to (him) as the white feather?
Obama to States: “Drop Dead!”
Gov. Abbott must ask Judge Hanen if Obama is violating Hanen’s ruling.
“States that do not comply with the requirement would be breaking the law and could be subject to enforcement action, including suspension or termination of the federally funded program, according to the letter, signed by the director of the federal resettlement office, Robert Carey, and quoted by AP”.
No state should allow an out of control President and Federal Government to be making demands of the Sovereign that originally gave it the power to exist, and no state in it’s right mind should allow it’s citizens to be sending money direct to Washington bypassing the State who remains Supreme over the Fed. in everything not specifically enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States. Read that once more, Constitution of the United States!
Screw you Barky.
You are about to learn what the "winds of change" mean.
The states will shove this so far up your tailpipe you won't be able to start the motor.
....... Heck ....... Please state your cause. Otherwise ..... please go home ...... and smoke another Fat One .... and leave this nation alone!!!!!!!!!!
would it be rude to refer to (him) as the white feather?
or black feather-
as he is half and half.
342 cities in the U.S. do not have legal authority to self-declare themselves “sanctuary cities.” Der Obamafuehrer does not have legal authority to rewrite ACA,a,dozen or more times.
Funny how this lawless administration now raises the rule,of law as an argument.
and the leader of which America?
Seems Mr. Pot is calling a lot of kettles black.
Your probably correct, but I trust/hope that he would appreciate my intent?
The thought came to me from a movie I saw as a youth, the Four Feathers (1939).
Actually, the thought comes to me most times that I see or hear something from our... person in office.
I believe that he will be spending a lot of his post office time defending his ‘stuff’.
His legacy won’t be obscured in history or by it.
First, here is your Supreme Court-issued license to apply your common sense in interpreting the Constitution pepsi_junkie.
3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition. - United States v. Sprague, 1931.
Next, although it has evidently never done the House any good, the RINO-controlled House has read the Constitution out loud at the beginnings of its last three legislative sessions, including its Article I, Section 8-limited powers. And although many people might think that the uniform Rule of Naturalization Clause, clause 4 of that section (1.8.4), gives Congress the power to regulate immigration, they are wrong imo. This is evidenced by the following excerpts from the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution.
Note that both Jefferson and Madison reflected on 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty with respect to the issue of immigration in these excerpts.
Here is the relevant excerpt from Jeffersons writings.
4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the - day of July, 1798, intituled An Act concerning aliens, which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force [emphasis added]. Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798.
Here is the related excerpt from Madison's writings from the Virginia Resolutions.
"That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, ...
. . .
. . . the General Assembly doth solemenly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people [emphasis added]. James Madison, Draft of the Virginia Resolutions - December 1798.
Regarding the Supreme Court case concerning Pennsylvania where it was decided that so-called federal immigration laws override state immigration laws, I wish that I had more information.
Given that Jefferson and Madison had indicated that the states had never delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate immigration, I know that the Supreme Court had clarified that powers not expressly delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the power to regulate immigration in this example, are prohibited to the feds.
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. - United States v. Butler, 1936.
Finally, note that lawless Obama is not the main problem with respect to unconstitutional federal government interference in 10th Amendment-protected state immigration policy to not accept refugees. The real problem is this imo. Although lawless Obama has a laundry list of things that Congress should impeach and remove him from office for, corrupt, state sovereignty-ignoring Congress wrongly refuses to do so.
In fact, if patriots elect Trump or another conservative as president, patriots need to support the new president by also electing a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that is also willing to work within its Section 8-limited powers to support the new president.
Your post was very informative, I thank you.
There’s so much that we who care about this country don’t know.
(though I’ll just speak for myself, unlike barry with a mouse in his pocket)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.